Call to replace ‘elitist’ department led by former diplomats at the Foreign Office
A group of former senior diplomats and officials have declared that the Foreign Office ought to be dismantled and replaced with a new Department for International Affairs that would have “fewer colonial era pictures on the wall”.
They have prepared a brochure outlining a drastic foreign policy change for the UK.
The Foreign Office, they claim, is aristocratic, “rooted in the past” and “struggling to deliver a clear mandate”.
The department replied that its priorities were well-defined.
According to the group of former officials, the new department ought to be given more authority to better coordinate trade and aid, development, and climate change strategies, as well as traditional foreign policy, in order to advance Britain’s prosperity and security.
This, according to the authors, would be more effective in helping Britain achieve its long-term foreign policy goals.
They claim that by better coordinating strategy on trade and assistance, development, and climate change – as well as traditional foreign policy – the department might boost Britain’s prosperity and security.
The authors recommend that in order to prevent frequent changes to short-term policy, Parliament should assign the new department “core objectives and mandates” that “endure beyond the tenure of individual ministers”.
Additionally, they contend that, similar to how 2% of the country’s wealth is already allocated to defense, the government should make a new promise to allocate 1% of its income to the department’s foreign priorities.
Former Foreign Office director general Moazzam Malik, former cabinet secretary Lord Sedwill, and former ambassador and foreign affairs adviser to Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and David Cameron, Tom Fletcher, are among the writers.
The World in 2040: Renewing the UK’s Approach to International Affairs brochure summarises the outcomes of a two-day conference that took place in Oxford and brought together top civil servants, national security advisers, and former ministers.
The Foreign Office, formally known as the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), is criticized harshly by the writers. They claim that it’s “struggling to deliver a clear mandate, prioritisation and resource allocation” .
The facility “all too often operates like a giant private office for the foreign secretary of the day, responding to the minister’s immediate concerns and ever-changing in tray” , according to them. They also say that the Department of International Development and the FCDO merger “struggled to deliver”.
According to them “the very name of the Foreign, Commonwealth (formerly ‘Colonial’) and Development Office is anchored in the past”.
“A new department dedicated to international affairs, often known as global affairs, might indicate a role shift. The leaflet states, “The Foreign Office’s physical surroundings on King Charles Street also hint at the office’s identity: somewhat elitist and rooted in the past.”
“Modernising premises – perhaps with fewer colonial era pictures on the walls – might help create a more open working culture and send a clear signal about Britain’s future.”
At the height of the British empire, the Foreign Office, located on King Charles Street in Whitehall, was constructed in the 1860s in a majestic, classical Victorian architecture to dazzle foreign guests.
Many of the paintings there depict Britain’s colonial past; one of them, which is located next to the foreign secretary’s office, shows a black youngster holding aloft a basket of fruit as Africa.
“A mid-sized offshore power”
The writers’ central claim is that Britain has to understand its “purpose, history, interests and assets as an off-shore, mid-sized power” better.
They argue that it “will not be able to rely on just its traditional alliances with the US and Europe” and that it should instead establish new, “pragmatic” ties with other “middle powers” around the globe.
They contend that future security and prosperity in Britain will be more directly linked to its social and economic ties with neighboring powers, particularly in Asia.
The former diplomats argue that as part of these new alliances, the UK had to be prepared to “share rights” with developing nations inside reformed multilateral institutions.
Even while new partners’ “interests and values may be less closely aligned” with Britain’s, it should nonetheless embrace them. They say that rather than attempting to present the world with an image of “greatness” that “seems anachronistic today,” the UK should “be more of a team-player, showing humility and respect.”
The leaflet states: “A stronger self-awareness of our status as a ‘off-shore’ nation is necessary to reclaim a sense of confidence.
“As a mid-sized power outside the European Union, there is potentially much to learn from countries like Norway, Canada, Switzerland and Japan who are able to use their size and independence to leverage significant influence on the world stage.”
They contend that in order to accomplish all of that, a new department of international affairs is needed, one that would oversee “long-term strategy and policy,” with more autonomous agencies handling the majority of the actual implementation.
According to the Foreign Office, it has well-defined aims that include helping Ukraine, fostering international development, creating a more secure Middle East, and increasing UK security, prosperity, and employment.
“We are optimizing the advantages of combining diplomacy and development in the FCDO to better handle global challenges, as seen in our responses to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and in the Middle East,” an FCDO spokesperson stated.
“We are committed to having an even greater impact and influence on the world stage – which is why we recently completed a review across the department to ensure we are effectively directing our funds, streamlining all our international policy work, and building our capability for the future.